Edward Carr and Carl Djerassi on polymathy

Journalist Edward Carr wrote a really interesting article a few years ago in a current magazine published by The Economist that was then called Intelligent Life (and is now called 1843).

His article was titled The Days of the Polymath, and is a must-read for anyone interested in the modern polymath. He interviewed several polymaths (at least by his standards) and tried to address the question of why there are fewer polymaths these days than formerly.

Carr came up with a “breadth” test for polymath status, explaining that “a scientist who composes operas and writes novels is more of a polymath than a novelist who can turn out a play or a painter who can sculpt.” He believed that success in thoroughly unrelated fields enhanced one’s polymath status.

Carr interviewed the polymathic Carl Djerassi, who was one of the inventors of the birth control pill. Djerassi argued that influence and acceptance was an essential requirement of polymathy. Djerassi believed that a person was not really a polymath unless he or she was accepted as an expert by practitioners in each field that the polymath claimed to master. He said, “It means that your polymath activities have passed a certain quality control that is exerted within each field by the competition. If they accept you at their level, then I think you have reached that state rather than just dabbling.”

Djerassi’s definition is thus not as rigorous to the definitions proposed by the Royal Institution’s speakers that we reviewed yesterday. Remember that they had all argued that a real polymath had to make some sort of contribution to his/her field at a professional level.

In contrast, Djerassi argues only that others in the field accept the potential polymath as one of their own in the field.

That seems more reasonable. More tomorrow.